About your Search

20121222
20121230
Search Results 0 to 7 of about 8
with a number of high threat posts. that part of defense boyce five agencies to the assessment teams diplomat and military security experts to the 19 posts and into 13 countries and between the departments very critical times. these teams have provided a road map for addressing the emerging security challenges. we are also partnering with the pentagon to send 35 additional detachments of the marine security guards that's about 235 marines to the medium and high for outposts where they will serve as a visible deterrent to a hostile act. that is on top of the 150 detachments we already deployed. we are aligning resources in the 2013 budget request to address the physical form a devotees and reinforce the structures wherever needed to address the risk from fire. let me add we may need your help to ensure that we have the authority to streamline the usual process that produced faster results. we are seeking to hire more than 150 diplomatic security personnel and increased 5% to provide them with the equipment and training that they need. there is the arb recommended we will target them squarely a
, the cost of the war was not included in the budget except the military and the defense budget. but the additional costs were not reflected in the budget. there were always supplementals. so they didn't show as a deficit. a vendor ackley to the debt. so while the budgets were reasonable in that period of time, the actual spending didn't show in the budget and people didn't pay as much attention to the debt as they do today because it kept mounting and so we borrowed to pay for the war and in fact we didn't ask people to make sacrifices financially. >> there is a difference between borrowing in the future, paying for work and paying back words, we are having to pay right now. people might have felt differently if they had felt the pinch right at that time. we would have asked different questions and were asked, and i think that is one of the reasons we got where we are. and it's where we are. >> on appropriations could you have been any more vocal about it to provide us getting into this situation? >> welcome on was vocal about it. i don't know. when i got on the appropriations
will report. the clerk: h.r. 1, an act making appropriations for the department of defense and other departments and agencies of the government for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2011, and for other purposes. mr. coats: mr. president, i would like to call up amendment 3391. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: the senator from indiana, mr. coats, proposes amendment numbered 3391. mr. coats: mr. president, i'm cognizant of the fact that we will have a series of votes beginning in just 15 minutes, and so even though the unanimous consent request on this amendment is for 30 minutes equally divided, i'm going to try to judiciously use this time between myself and senator alexander to explain why we're offering this amendment and hopefully our colleagues will be persuaded to support us when we vet on this probably tomorrow. we are all, of course, sensitive to the pain and damage inflicted by mother nature on the northeast. in fact, some of the northeast is getting some more of that pain with the storm up there today. no state or region in our countr
passed a law called the defense of marriage act, which says marriage is between a man and woman. entity come from a state that recognizes same-sex marriage, like massachusetts, like new york, know what the state has to recognize that marriage. and it won't be recognized by any federal purposes, for example, social security. there has been a challenge to the constitutionality of that at -- that act. the court of appeals upheld it unconstitutional. the review has been filed in the supreme court. we haven't acted on it yet but it would be extraordinary for the court to act, to consider the constitutionality of a law passed by congress that a lower court had held unconstitutional. so i think it's most likely that we will have that issue before the court, toward the end of the current term. and then the person who asked the question will -- [inaudible] have the answer. >> another question comes from the auditorium. the lilly ledbetter case, one where you wrote a very emotionally charged dissent, that you, as i recall, read from the branch a game binge -- read from the bench, which is a rare
they get together and what kind of system is that? where does the defense have these rights? that's right, and then i think, you know, 98% or 95% of the cases are decided by a plea-bargain between the prosecutor and the lead defense lawyer. and i say what kind of a system is that? .. >> go into a courtroom. it's a nasty system. and it isn't terribly efficient. they put it in because hamilton and the others hoped it would do one kind of a guarantee of a certain kind of basic liberty. and, of course, i believed in that. i wouldn't spend so much time -- yes. now, here. sorry. >> thanks. justice breyer, and john. i write the mitchell report. as i was listening to the beginning of this conversation between the two of you i was reminded of a wonderful conversation that took place probably 30 plus years ago between bill moyers and one of, a former justice, justice blackmun, talking about the constitution. answer this question sort of goes to at what's at the heart of constitutionalism and rule of law, and looking back at the list of things that you listed. in the course of that conversation afte
to get less protection than paper records. as the national association of defense attorneys has pointed out, since the 1870's, the government must get a warrant to look and read your mail, as is the case of katz versus the united states, the government has been required to have a warrant to tap your phone. however, under current law, your email, your text messages and other electronic communications do not receive the same level of protection as your phone calls do. why is a phone call deserving of more protection than your email or your text? justice soto mayor in u.s. versus jones, the recent supreme court case that says the government can't put a g.p.s. tracking device on your car without a warrant says this -- "i for one doubt that people would accept without complaint the warrantless disclosure of the government to the government of a list of every web site they have visited in the last week, month or year. i would not assume that all information voluntarily disclosed to some member of the public for unlimited purpose is for that reason alone disentitled to the fourth amendment pro
number 14, h.r. 1, an act making appropriations for the department of defense and the other departments andations of the government for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2011, and for other purposes. ms. mikulski: madam president? the presiding officer: under the previous order, there will be two minutes of debate equally divided prior to a vote in relation to amendment number 3393 offered by the senator from maryland, mr. cardin. ms. mikulski: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from maryland. ms. mikulski: first of all, madam president, the senate is not in order. and if i could outline -- the presiding officer: may we have order in the chamber, please. ms. mikulski: if the chamber could be in order, i could outline what i think would be an expeditious way of disposing many amendments that would be done in a collegial way. it is my understanding that we will be able to adopt a number of amendments by voice. in order to do that, i will call up a few more amendments now en bloc before a voice vote on the amendments. i ask unanimous consent to call up the following ame
for the department of defense and so forth. ms. mikulski: i ask the reading of the bill be waived. the presiding officer: the senator from maryland. without objection. ms. mikulski: mr. president, as we now move to final passage on this bill -- mr. president, if we could get a little quiet, i believe senator cochran and i on a bipartisan basis could wrap up our statements. the presiding officer: may we have order. ms. mikulski: mr. president, we're now moving to final passage here, and i know this bill will provide immediate relief to very -- to our constituents. i urge the adoption of this -- urge the adoption of the bill. and i want to thank senator cochran, the ranking member on this bill, for his courtesy. i want to say to my colleagues, senator inouye would have been really proud of the way we acted today. we acted with civility. we acted with crispness and promptness. we did the people's business. he'd really be proud of us and i'm proud of you. i want to thank my subcommittee chairs for the great work they did. senators schumer, lautenberg, gillibrand and menendez. and to the able staff o
Search Results 0 to 7 of about 8